Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. 

This news story from 10/26/2012 has stuck with me more than anything else during those days following the fiasco in Benghazi. I thought, Petreous is putting out the word that he and the CIA will not be the fall guys for the failure to provide assistance to the Americans in Benghazi.

Now, trying to fit this in with all that's happened with Petraeus resignation, and news of an affair, and that he won't testify next week, etc., the meaning of that news release is murkier than ever. Does anyone have ideas about how this fits in now?

And let me add ... its not inconceivable that Krystol actually heard from the General’s mouth what was intended by the statement ... the General was a hero of the Neocons and I think he was in contact with them.

I believe with my whole heart, there is a Fast & Furious ala Libya style that was going on. Petraeus has his hands dirty, so does O, so does Panetta, Hillary, Stevens, all of them. And that rat fink Jarrett too.

And we’ll probably never know the full story.

12
posted on 11/11/2012 4:45:43 PM PST
by Qwackertoo
(Going into Politic Free Zone Momma Grizzly hibernation for a while after this week, maybe forever.)

Thanks for all the comments, and I’ll add: I recall nothing in the way of any follow-up comments in the same vein from any CIA spokesmen. The CIA just seemed to go silent and make no further comments as to who did what, or who did not do what.

Why is all the men, well many of them, get caught in these scandals whether it be with women or with other men? You just don’t hear of the political women, left or right, ugly or pretty, getting caught up in this krap. They tried it with Nicki Haley . . . but she is the only one that comes to mind on the national scene and then it just died down. Men are too easy to corrupt. Maybe we will be better off when we have a majority of Congress and the White House with a woman in charge. Just sayin’.

19
posted on 11/11/2012 4:49:55 PM PST
by Qwackertoo
(Going into Politic Free Zone Momma Grizzly hibernation for a while after this week, maybe forever.)

remember, 2 days after the Libya attack, Petraeus and Clinton briefed the Senate comm..he stuck with that ridiculous “video” story,...the Senators came out of the hearing pissed, “claiming they got more info from the NY Times. Also, Petraeus ommited parts of the intel that said it was a terrorist attack from people that were there.Then the CIA started leaking...then the above story and statement came from Petraeus, a clear signal that he was not on “board” anymore. Now, right before he testifies..and AFTER the election, this comes out. I say, the Obama people knew this affair stuff all along, were afraid of Petreaus’s testimonmy...and dropped this on him. If they did do this to him for political purposes, that is “abuse of power”...also,if Obama and Petraeus etc all knew of this affair BEFORE his confirmation hearings, then Petraues perjured himself..and the rest “suborned perjury” ...this could get ugly.

The thing that makes no sense to me is, if Petraeus had decided to tell the truth, then revealing the affair takes away that as a potential blackmail threat. So what did the Obama gang have to gain by making the affair known, or accepting a resignation?

If you blackmail someone with damaging information, you leave them alone, where they are, as long as they do not cause any problems for the blackmailer.

Now it would seem Petraeus is free of any blackmail threat, plus he gave up the CIA post so he can’t threatened with firing.

If he’s not free to testify truthfully, then there has to be some further threat, or he’s an unbelievable Obama/Democrat toadie. That’s not the reputation he’s had so far.

I added a keyword to your post. Namely, "Benghazi". Some of the guess may end up being very accurate. I look at it as a two edge sword. Surely the CIA knows exactly where the Kenyan was born and to whom. Then add the FBI. Surely they know all about the details on how BHO has used various Social Security Cards over the years, the public displays of false Full Birth Certificate, Live Birth Certificate, all his student years and adult acquaintances,now known false draft registration card, etc..

So I don't think the kenyan's puppet masters had him throw the good general under a buss. I'm sticking to the idea the D/CIA could not stand continuing on in this administration and said the hell with it. Perhaps had agreements with the FBI, others, to have things arranged so that he had a way out. For all we know, his wife may have known what the deal was for a long time. And for all we know he may have had agreements with certain people in Congress as to what would he would do and to bear with him, that shortly he would give the various hearings/enquirers enough stuff to set the record straight on who was responsible for the loss of those four Americans. That's my two cents on this topic.

With respect to all. Beyond that evaluation, "knowing the knowns", it could be as simple a scenario as that.

I thought Petraeus probably planned to tell the truth also, but then came the news that he would not be testifying next week before any committees. That seemed strange, though he can be subpoened at a later date.

And as late as Petraeus came to his CIA job, any information damaging to Obama could long since have been buried in the depths of any government bureaucracy that might have had such information. If information is around, it’d probably be some of the old hands in some bureaucracy that would know about it.

When did Petraeus not go along with their story ? I thought he testified that the YouTube video was the reason, etc.

You're right, he did. I'm referring to the leaks (which admittedly he may not have had anything to do with), the public statement from CIA, and Broadwell's public statements.

It looks to me like someone decided he had to go, whether him or them. He revealed the affair to keep them from revealing it first.

I rather thought the opposite at the time; how did they get Petraeus to go along with such an obviously phony line as the whole "you tube" story? I don't remember, was he under oath for heaven's sake? I'm imagining his willingness to go along was starting to fray. I'm not sure I understand yet exactly how this all hangs together but that it is related I don't doubt for a moment.

I don't believe in a disinterested FBI investigation that just happened to topple the CIA Director. A government that is running guns to Mexican and Honduran mafias, and Al Qaeda all over the middle east, isn't going to be too concerned that their spymaster is sleeping with his biographer. Mainly when they knew it all along.

remember, when his resignation was made public, a statement said that there will be “no criminal charges brought “..i.e. perjury...this guy had to perjure himself at his confirmation hearing. Dont they also give a lie detector test for the C.I.A. conformation? Perhaps he failed that and he was confirmed anyway. As it stands now, they just want him to ride off into the sunset..the testimony from his replacement this week will tell alot..if the new guy sticks to this “video” story, that tells me Obama etc viewed Petraues as a threat.

This all so much like that old political novel by Alan Drury, Advise and Consent. The intrigue, the sex, the mystery, the players, they’re all there! There has to be a murder or suicide somewhere to complete the story, and maybe a gay bar or two, and some sort of Communist connection . . . oh, well, we already know where that is.

I believe he was blackmailed to tell that lie. This is why it is so important that he does testify, because he needs to explain why he lied in the first place.

Now that could make sense, though it might be too much to hope for. But it's possible that he had already been blackmailed to go along with that ridiculous story, and eventually he decided that he'd be blackmailed no longer so he got the blackmail threat (the affair) out of the way, then resigned. So, now he can tell the truth.

It's plausible, and I sure hope it's true, but it's anyone's guess at this point.

And I also think the most damning information would concern who knew of the requests for assistance from the Americans in Benghazi, and who denied the requests for that assistance. That is far more damning than the lies about the reasons for the terror attack, and all that is still to be discovered if someone will step forward and tell the truth.

And it's more important that we learn about who denied the asssistance than anything about why Petraeus went along with the Obama lies about what caused the attack.

I won't press any points. Like I said. My personal evaluation is based on some of the well established things these gov agencies must know about the pres.. I just think the good general simply could not stand working with those in this administration. My thoughts may end up being a bunch of BS for all I know. Perhaps in due time we shall know the whole deal as what went down. The CIA was carrying out a clandestine operation running weapons to Turkey primarily as we have come to know. I don't think the CIA wanted to have any of our men sacrificed in this case. Perhaps it will turn out not to be the case.

a statement said that there will be no criminal charges brought ..i.e. perjury...this guy had to perjure himself at his confirmation hearing.

I'm not familiear with that, but it would be another piece of the puzzle, and something that weakens Petraeus as a possible truth teller if he had to cut a deal to get that included in an agreement to resign.

Then again, if the Obama people used that to pressure him to withhold relevant information about Benshazi, that is part of an illegal coverup to prevent the truth from being learned.

It sure does put Watergate to shame, and I wonder if a Butterfield will ever stop forward (if I recall the right name).

And I still keep wondering about the other Americans who were at the Benghazi consulate and the CIA safe house. Not one word from any of them and several reports I read said around 30 Americans were saved from the attack.

to me, its actually unraveling kind of fast...mostly because the premise of what they are trying to sell about the attack is just ridiculous..not to mention the incompetance. In Watergate, that was very complex and it took awhile to unravel it all..then again, the media hated Nixons guts, and they really went after him.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.